News Control of US ports: Bush selling out on US security?

[crazycalhoun]

I certianly am glad to hear that it is impossible.

The threat your imagining? Probably.

 

[Cyrus]

One minor nitpick, that was not me who said that. You must have had my name suck in your head when you put another person’s quote.

From Cyrus

Quote:

It is not unrealistic to suppose that if one or more members of senior management wanted to bring something into America surreptitiously they could do so

As I said above this is not a management level decision, if it were I would be much less concerned. This is a dock level decisions. We must trust that the people loading and unloading the containers do not have the opportunity or ability to tamper with them. This is true no matter who is controlling the port.

Ok, NOW on to what I said

From Cyrus
Quote:

Now, there has been a disconnect between the NSA and the White House when it comes to how reported intelligence has been selectively manipulated. For this reason, I believe the best thing in this situation would be to have to NSA, CIA, etc put on the record an official overall approval or disapproval of the UAE takeover. By doing so, it helps to eliminate the possibility of the White House manipulating the recommendations of the NSA, et al as they have been known to do in the past.

So I should just trust the Bush administration to watch out for me.

Unfortunately our wonderful CIA has a history of bungling, now I should trust them to do something right.~^ I will not sleep tonight.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

While I agree that the Bush administration has proved that we simply cannot trust them to not manipulate the intelligence reports, the question still remains as to who we will get our intelligence from. Earlier, Art provided an excerpt from an article where Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee made the following statement:

"I'm aware of the conditions and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people"

Now this is a debatable point. In my opinion, it is something that can be resolved for the following reasons: (1) it is illegal to hire a citizen who does not have a valid work permit inside the United States. So this helps to limit a sudden influx of foreign workers to US ports (This of course assumes they don't just hire them illegally with forged papers; but again that could be checked with stringent government checks, something that should be in place regardless of who owns operations of the ports). (2) Legislation can be passed so that any international hires must go through a background check by the government. This does one of two things, puts their name and information into a database and searches for ties to known terrorists. (3) If the UAE already owns major ports outside of the US, then it is a fallacy to think that they would allow terrorists to put a weapon inside a container in the US. The probability strongly supports that they would place a weapon inside a container at a port of their control that lies outside the US where restrictions are lax.


Next point,

Unfortunately our wonderful CIA has a history of bungling, now I should trust them to do something right.~^ I will not sleep tonight.

Yes, that is a fair assessment of the CIA; however, we then have to ask ourselves the following question. (a) Are we going to dismiss what the CIA reports in terms of security? If the answer to this is yes, then it means we cannot trust them for any intelligence. They have more information than we do, so it is simply not fair for us to pick and chose when we think the CIA is right. (b) we go with what the CIA says, but we put their asses on the line by holding them accountable for stringent surveillance and wire tapping of the port management employees and the United Arab Emirates, as they are not US citizens and can be surveilled.

The fundamental issue here is that we must be able to guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. Will this change, change anything? Perhaps not, but do we need to change how we handle the containers to ensure the safety of our nation and our citizens.

Yes and No. That is the theoretical issue, as we simply cannot guarantee the security of every container from point of origin to destination. We can increase the number of random checks on containers entering the US ports, but that is the most we can do. How we handle containers is something that is totally independent from who owns the ports. It is not the job of the port owners to act as customs agents or the Coast Guard. As I previously alluded to, a terrorist does not necessarily have to go though the UAE owned port, for all we know it could come from a ship located in Central America to a port on the west coast.

We need to be proactive in preventing terrorist from using shipment containers from importing WMD. To deny the possibility of this is short sighted and down right foolish. Remember, nobody purposely flew and airliner into a building until 911.

Yes, and I too do not deny the possibility; however, even if the port were put into US control, the threat would not be substantially less than in control by the UAE for the reasons of necessity to put the WMD into a container at a foreign port, not a domestic port.


(For some reason my PF went crazy and would not let me post or edit my post, sorry about that if you saw some quotes with no context.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am still trying to find the quote - please post if you spot it - but the news services are citing Chertoff who explained that we have to "balance national security with free trade".

This is a national security issue and not a sale of widgets. Again, it makes one wonder whose side these guys are on. Above all, Chertoff should be the first one objecting to this; if nothing else on principle.

Edit: Here we go:

We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want a robust global economy

-Chertoff
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FSU0J00.htm?campaign_id=apn_sbiz_up&chan=sb

This from the guy who lead us through Katrina

 

[SOS2008]

Do you remember this?

ICE ARRESTS 17 ILLEGAL WORKERS EMPLOYED BY MILITARY SUBCONTRACTOR THAT ALLEGEDLY IGNORED NO-HIRE WARNINGS - http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/articles/051130sandiego.htm

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

 

[Moonbear]

Then tell us how your terrorists crack, seal or switch containers without the aid of work crews.

Integral already addressed this...the managers are the ones hiring the work crews and assigning shifts. Right now, there is no law that says they have to hire U.S. citizens, and I know that because that's what Congress is scrambling to do now, create such a law. For that matter, even with such a law, they could still overlook faked IDs. One of the people I spent Christmas with cannot get a passport right now because she was born in Hudson County, NJ, where there were so many fraudulently issued birth certificates (real birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics, not ones someone forged on a computer somewhere) that they cannot be used as ID for obtaining a passport. That's one of the northern counties in NJ that includes Jersey City and is just across the river from Manhattan.

As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/ande1028_r.htm

And the news story on it:

Imagine being told you'd never been born. Or rather, that records of your birth were no longer valid.

Last month, thousands of Hudson County, N.J., residents got that unnerving news, after hearing that their birth certificates had been declared invalid because of an ongoing fraud investigation at the Hudson County Clerk's office, just across the river from Manhattan. The U.S. State Department had shut down passport operations at the clerk's office after an investigation uncovered alleged document fraud at the office -- specifically, sale of fraudulent birth certificates.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5946145/

Or, you can just outright hire corrupt security:

Newark, NJ -- New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey today (Feb 3, 2004)[/color] announced that a corruption investigation has resulted in the indictment of Newark-based Haynes Security, Inc. and the company’s President and Corporate Executive Officer (CEO) on corruption-related charges which include bribery, theft and conspiracy. The criminal indictment also charges a former PSEG corporate manager with receiving thousands of dollars from Haynes Security during the period Haynes provided security services to the energy company.

"We are continuing to aggressively investigate and prosecute public corruption cases whether the acts are committed by elected officials or corporate officers seeking to feather their nest at public expense," Attorney General Harvey said. "The significant results obtained through this ongoing investigation and indictment allege that one of New Jersey’s largest security firms chose to evade the laws regulating security services and to engage in corrupt practices. The outcome of the alleged illegal activity had the potential to jeopardize security at Newark/Liberty Airport."

http://www.njdcj.org/releases/2004/haynes0203.htm

 

[Cyrus]

Moonbear, as I stated earlier, all the security and rent-a-cops in the entire United States will not make one bit of difference. Their job is not that of the US Customs and Coast Guard. At best, they will watch over the facility. In addition, it is lax security as the foreign ports that will enable terrorists to smuggle WMD into our country, not our own ports (Unless they want to smuggle WMD out of our country).

 

[Integral]

Moonbear, as I stated earlier, all the security and rent-a-cops in the entire United States will not make one bit of difference. Their job is not that of the US Customs and Coast Guard. At best, they will watch over the facility. In addition, it is lax security as the foreign ports that will enable terrorists to smuggle WMD into our country, not our own ports (Unless they want to smuggle WMD out of our country).

Seems to me that we must have security at both ends. If we cannot contol what is loaded the least we must do is ensure that nothing hazardous can be unloaded. How do we do this? Not even a bit clear to me. I will admit that I now next to nothing about how the container system works. Can someone explain to me just what the seal on one of these things consists of?

 

[Moonbear]

Seems to me that we must have security at both ends. If we cannot contol what is loaded the least we must do is ensure that nothing hazardous can be unloaded. How do we do this? Not even a bit clear to me. I will admit that I now next to nothing about how the container system works. Can someone explain to me just what the seal on one of these things consists of?

Here's one type of seal.
http://www.marathonproducts.com/products_container.html

The idea is it is imprinted with a number that is recorded on the shipping documents, so if the number doesn't match or the seal is broken, you know the shipment has been tampered with.

While looking for a picture, I stumbled across this too...it seems a bill was introduced last year on sealing shipping containers (it seems to be a revision to prior legislation). I don't know if it was passed, or what the discussion was on it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.163.IH:

Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 163 IH

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163

To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2005

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out an empty shipping container sealing pilot program to encourage shipping container handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

As far as I know, there are two main reasons to put a seal on a shipment. One is to provide a quick visual inspection for potential theft or other unauthorized removal of contents, and the other is after the contents have been inspected so that nothing can be added without evidence of tampering.

Ah, and here seems to be where this would be a vulnerability:

The TESC initiative is just one of many responses to guidelines from the Custom Trade-Partnership Against Terrorism (CT-PAT), a partnership between United States Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security, and the trade community.

A voluntary consortium of companies, CT-PAT hopes to encourage the use of technology to secure cargo sent over land and sea by offering incentives to those importers who comply with CT-PAT guidelines.

Petrizzi said U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner is proposing to create a so-called "green lane" for shippers. "To qualify for green lane treatment you will need to do three things: be a CT-PAT member in good standing, ship only through designated secure ports, and use an approved container security device," said Petrizzi.

Those importers that do qualify will receive expedited processing through the U.S. ports.

Petrizzi pointed out that a two-day increase in holding inventory due to delay at the ports costs trading partners $50 billion to $80 billion annually.

CT-PAT is voluntary in order to encourage non-U.S. shippers to comply with U.S. security needs, added Petrizzi.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/01/11/HNge_1.html?INTRUSION%20DETECTION%20SYSTEM%20-%20IDS

It doesn't sound like such a system exists yet, but if that is allowed to proceed as well, then the easiest way to smuggle something would be to have an insider who allows a supposedly secure container pass through after it has been tampered with. And, it sounds like the current vulnerability is that it's possible to open containers without breaking the seal on them (from earlier in that article) by simply taking the door off the hinges.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

Checks, and checks on the checkers etc are obviouly needed in any case. No one is beyond suspicion. But we don't need to stumble around like blind fools who can't even act in our own best interest. This should be US controlled from top to bottom and then every effort made to police the system. How this can not be obvious to anyone is completely beyond me.

 

[Cyrus]

Because, Ivan, the government is not allowed to run businesses. If it were to take over the port, it would effectively be taking over and competing in a commercial area with our tax dollars, and that is not the purpose of government.

 

[Moonbear]

The governors of two affected states are getting involved now too, and are looking into options including revoking the lease for running the ports.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two Republican governors on Monday questioned a Bush administration decision allowing an Arab-owned company to operate six major U. S. ports, saying they may try to cancel lease arrangements at ports in their states.
New York Gov. George Pataki and Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich voiced doubts about the acquisition of a British company that has been running the U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060221/D8FTBR100.html

So, Cyrus, you say our own government shouldn't run our own ports, but it's okay with you if UAE government does?

 

[loseyourname]

So, Cyrus, you say our own government shouldn't run our own ports, but it's okay with you if UAE government does?

A state-owned company running the operations is not the same as the government running the operations. We actually do the same thing with many of our ports. Take the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, for instance. It is a state-run corporation whose leaders are appointed by the two state governments and which was initially set up with public tax dollars. However, the men who run it, as far as I know (I know this was at least the case during the Robert Moses era), do not take input from government officials, are not accountable to the public, and are otherwise autonomous. The structure is set up just like a private corporation and the authority is even self-funded through user fees (bridge, tunnel, and road tolls), which is what allows its operation to be autonomous rather than directed by politicians.*

I have no idea, but I would imagine that the company doing the acquisition is closer to this than an actual department of the UAE government. Does anyone here know for sure?

*Take this with somewhat of a grain of salt, as I'm sure I'm off on some small details. I'm not exactly an expert on public authorities. The important point is that they operate the same as private companies and make their own decisions free from government direction.

Edit: Also, just to note, if I'm wrong and this company is indeed state-owned and state-run and essentially a department of the UAE government, then I am not okay with them acquiring private property in the United States in any form (unless you count treasury bonds as private property). Outsourced socialism is no better than domestic socialism.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Maybe it doesn't matter who's running the show.

Because ICE will come down on you like a cold case a Cobra?

 

[crazycalhoun]

Integral already addressed this...the managers are the ones hiring the work crews and assigning shifts.

Not at the Port of NY. And I'd love to see some documentation on hiring and labor management at other ports.

Right now, there is no law that says they have to hire U.S. citizens, and I know that because that's what Congress is scrambling to do now, create such a law.

Congress isn't scrambling to do anything of the sort. Senate and House Democrats are.

For that matter, even with such a law, they could still overlook faked IDs.

Which are already illegal.

One of the people I spent Christmas with cannot get a passport right now because she was born in Hudson County, NJ, where there were so many fraudulently issued birth certificates (real birth certificates from the Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics, not ones someone forged on a computer somewhere) that they cannot be used as ID for obtaining a passport. That's one of the northern counties in NJ that includes Jersey City and is just across the river from Manhattan.

1. I know where New Jerusalem is.

2. Sounds like Jersey's stepping up their vigilence. Good for them.

 

[Moonbear]

Not at the Port of NY. And I'd love to see some documentation on hiring and labor management at other ports.

And I'd love to see some support for any of the claims you're making.

Congress isn't scrambling to do anything of the sort. Senate and House Democrats are.

And the difference is... Last I checked, Congress is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives. The point is, nobody would be scrambling to write such a bill if one already existed.

Which are already illegal.

And how does that contribute to the discussion?

 

[crazycalhoun]

And I'd love to see some support for any of the claims you're making.

Which one? It also seems to me that since you and Integral have some knowledge or documents on seaport operations, you should feel obliged to share them with us. Or am I to respond to the nightmares of the uninformed now?

And the difference is... Last I checked, Congress is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives.

And last I checked, Democrats were a minority.

The point is, nobody would be scrambling to write such a bill if one already existed.

The point is, nobody is. Congress isn't even in session. All you have is a lot of noise.

And how does that contribute to the discussion?

Just helping you out with the facts. Without'em, we're just makin a lot of noise, right?

 

[crazycalhoun]

I'd like to repeat my questions for the benefit of our more alarmed posters here.

1. Containers are heavy. We haul'em in by 18-wheel rigs, draw'em up by huge cranes or load'em on with RO/ROs. We stack'em on each other. They're at least 20 ft by 8 and 8 ft. So tell me. How is DP World a threat unless it can compromise entire work crews necessary to load, offload and handle these containers?

2. What operational advantage do you actually gain by controlling the offloading point? If terrorists wanted to ship in something nasty, like a nuke, why not just compromise the loading operation?

3. Does anyone here actually know what P & O presently does? I mean, besides the one-liner in the brochure?

 

[Skyhunter]

2. What operational advantage do you actually gain by controlling the offloading point? If terrorists wanted to ship in something nasty, like a nuke, why not just compromise the loading operation?

Less opportunity for discovery.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Less opportunity for discovery.

How is not owning a port going to help you discover a weapon either in another port or at sea?

 

[Skyhunter]

How is not owning a port going to help you discover a weapon either in another port or at sea?

One word.

Access.

If you cannot see how access enhances opportunity then I cannot explain it.

 

[crazycalhoun]

One word.

Access.

If you cannot see how access enhances opportunity then I cannot explain it.

I'm still not following. The weapon is either at another port or at sea. How could DP World use its acquisition of operations at the receiving port to its advantage?

 

[Moonbear]

I'd like to repeat my questions for the benefit of our more alarmed posters here.

1. Containers are heavy. We haul'em in by 18-wheel rigs, draw'em up by huge cranes or load'em on with RO/ROs. We stack'em on each other. They're at least 20 ft by 8 and 8 ft. So tell me. How is DP World a threat unless it can compromise entire work crews necessary to load, offload and handle these containers?

2. What operational advantage do you actually gain by controlling the offloading point? If terrorists wanted to ship in something nasty, like a nuke, why not just compromise the loading operation?

3. Does anyone here actually know what P & O presently does? I mean, besides the one-liner in the brochure?

We sure can get some answers from the descriptions of the jobs they've been hiring people for:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?IPATH=CJR&dv=dv&strCrit=QID%3dA3849709933866%3bst%3da%3buse%3dALL%3bCID%3d%3bSID%3d%3bTID%3d0%3bENR%3dNO%3bDTP%3dDR3%3bYDI%3dYES%3bIND%3dALL%3bPDQ%3dAll%3bJN%3dAll%3bPAYL%3d0%3bPAYH%3dgt120%3bPOY%3dNO%3bETD%3dALL%3bRE%3dALL%3bMGT%3dDC%3bSUP%3dDC%3bFRE%3d30%3bHHName%3dPOPNA%3bCHL%3dAL%3bQS%3dsid_unknown%3bSS%3dNO%3bTITL%3d0%3bJQT%3dRAD&lpage=1&jobcount=20&sfascc=&CiBookMark=1&Job_DID=J3F4DJ6YP6GX4TGRFPC
Yard Manager Job Description:

1.Manage and coordinate terminal yard operations for Break Bulk and RoRo cargo continually reviewing and initiating action to control the physical activities in a safe and cost effective manner. Supervise CFS, Heavy lift and or Rail operations and associated movements of cargo within the terminal.
2.Manage yard planning to ensure all requirements are met for stacking and on terminal stowage of containers to meet gate and stevedoring expectations.
3.Manages Yard Supervisors, equipment operators and yard clerks
a.Monitor operator assignment locations and jobs.
b.Ensure compliance with applicable Labour Agreements.
c.Ensure all new employees undertake job proficiency assessment and training.
d.Manage rail operations; governmental inspections and hazardous cargo to ensure all requirements are being met.
4.Ensure compliance with O.H.S.A. and the P&O Ports HSE procedures. Communicate information on Health and Safety to staff and ensure all employees attend safety indoctrination and training programs. Ensure all staff and labour follow all HSE procedures; immediately reporting discrepancies and taking corrective action. Ensure all accidents and incidents are immediately reported, investigated and corrective action taken.
5.Conduct audits on work practices to identify and recommend changes.
6.Fully functional as yard planner and supervisor. Performing those Position Duties and Responsibilities as necessary to provide adequate coverage of functions.
7.Ensure the needs of all customers, internal and external, (PPI, CFS, SCI, truck lines, steamship lines, vessel, gate) are balanced with proper priorities.
8.Monitor and report dwell time of containers and chassis and take appropriate action to manage long stay equipment and or cargo.
9.Other duties as assigned.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm still not following. The weapon is either at another port or at sea. How could DP World use its acquisition of operations at the receiving port to its advantage?

At another port or at sea, it is not a threat. It is only after it arrives that it becomes a threat. Not owning/controlling the home port limits access. Not that customs cannot go where they want, but I can attest that it is easy to misdirect and divert the attention of an inspector. Having Americans in charge of the day to day, mundane operations would enhance the opportunity to catch something suspicious.

 

[crazycalhoun]

We sure can get some answers from the descriptions of the jobs they've been hiring people for:
http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?IPATH=CJR&dv=dv&strCrit=QID%3dA3849709933866%3bst%3da%3buse%3dALL%3bCID%3d%3bSID%3d%3bTID%3d0%3bENR%3dNO%3bDTP%3dDR3%3bYDI%3dYES%3bIND%3dALL%3bPDQ%3dAll%3bJN%3dAll%3bPAYL%3d0%3bPAYH%3dgt120%3bPOY%3dNO%3bETD%3dALL%3bRE%3dALL%3bMGT%3dDC%3bSUP%3dDC%3bFRE%3d30%3bHHName%3dPOPNA%3bCHL%3dAL%3bQS%3dsid_unknown%3bSS%3dNO%3bTITL%3d0%3bJQT%3dRAD&lpage=1&jobcount=20&sfascc=&CiBookMark=1&Job_DID=J3F4DJ6YP6GX4TGRFPC
Yard Manager Job Description:

Yeah, but I think a number of people have pointed out that operations firms like P & O hire...well...operations people (OR, ILR, process engineers).

 

[edward]

I'm still not following. The weapon is either at another port or at sea. How could DP World use its acquisition of operations at the receiving port to its advantage?

Containers start from a factory or wahrehouse, then go to a container ship by either truck or rail. They are shipped to a destination according to a number on the outside of the container.

Here is an example of how a container can be routed:

A container is shipped from a furniture factory in Malaysia. With a forged routing code It is then sent to a warehouse in Indonesia. The container then ends up in the Port of Hongkong where it sets among tens of thousands of other containers for several weeks. BTW BP World "UAE" also controls the operation of the Port of HongKong. Now the continer is re-labeld again and sent on to the Port of Baltimore. From baltimore it goes by train to anywhere in the United states, oh sure you will need an exact city, so let's make it to a warehouse in Chicago.

So now you are saying, so what?

The ,So what, is that only four operatives could ship a dirty bomb or any other nasty weapon, from Indonesia to Chicago.
Why can't they do it now?? They could but with great difficulty because Indonsesia has an Islamic population that is involved in terrorism. Because of that, (google it yourself) shipping form Indonesia to the USA is watched more closely.

A container labled furniture coming from HongKong to the USA has less scrutiny. By now the container may be even labled "Tinker Toys" So what does this have to do with UAE buying the Ports? Access access access.
opportunity and motive are the two biggest factors in any crime.

Container shipping is the soft under belly of security, if you can't see that you are not really looking.

I posted this before but here it is again. The last line of the 9/11 Commission Report stated: " In the end, 911 happed due to a lack of imagination."

Sure my above depiction sounds like some kind of Hollywood movie plot, but then so did 9/11, and it worked! As a nmatter of fact after 9/11 the CIA nd FBI were asking Fiction writers for help in coming up with possible terrorist attack scenarios. Shipping containers were decided to be the most likey method. They still are.

 

[edward]

Moonbear:

There was another company bidding to get the U.S. ports. It is located in Singapore.

State-linked Singapore investment firm Temasek Holdings remains a formidable global player despite wholly-owned unit PSA International's failure to secure Britain's biggest port operator, analysts say

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/101917.asp

 

[edward]

Moonbear, as I stated earlier, all the security and rent-a-cops in the entire United States will not make one bit of difference. Their job is not that of the US Customs and Coast Guard. At best, they will watch over the facility. In addition, it is lax security as the foreign ports that will enable terrorists to smuggle WMD into our country, not our own ports (Unless they want to smuggle WMD out of our country).

Ah, but the can make sure a container is sent to whatever U.S. City is the target.

 

[Cyrus]

Edward, you argue a moot point. If I was a terrorist I would much rather set off that WMD at a large port, and shut down the entire US economy; rather than a major city. Why? (1) If I can get a WMD into a ship at a foreign port, then I don't have to worry about clearing inspections and transporting the WMD all the way to a major city. (2) It works to my advantage to set it off right at the inspection site, shutting down the entire port and the entire US economy, because even if I have 100% inspections I can still pull it off. That's why I have said it matters most that the foreign ports have tight security so that WMD never get onto a ship headed to the US in the first place. I will post with more thought later I have a TON of work to do.

 

[edward]

Seems to me that we must have security at both ends. If we cannot contol what is loaded the least we must do is ensure that nothing hazardous can be unloaded. How do we do this? Not even a bit clear to me. I will admit that I now next to nothing about how the container system works. Can someone explain to me just what the seal on one of these things consists of?

It is usually just a plasic band wrapped around the metal pin that locks the Container. If the pin is cut the plastic band is destroyed indicating that the container has been tampered with.

Most continers can be opened with a simple pair of bolt cutters. High dollar items usually have steel bars which are muchs stronger. With the right tool however any container can be opened in seconds.

Another trick is to remove the hinge pins on the doors. The pins can be put back in and the doors back on with the seal intact.

California law inforcement is having a big problem trying to track down the millions of dollars of goods that are stolen from containers each year. I just happened to see a link on CA and CHPS. Theft from containers is probably happening nationwide, but the Ports of Long Beach and L.A. are having a severe problem.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm still asking the question: Why can't America (government or private) manage it's own ports? Looking back on earlier appeals and information:

Steve Flynn on National Security in 2004:

- September 11 is how warfare will be fought in the foreseeable future. ...The acceptance that catastrophic terrorism will be used as a tactic of warfare should force us to fundamentally rethink how national security is done in our age. Unfortunately, this is something that hasn't processed inside the craniums of those who are paid to do national security.

- The pervasive view of the current administration in the national security world is very much built on the realist paradigm: that at the end of the day, these folks couldn't do the bad things they do without some kind of state sponsorship. For them, states remain very much a primary actor, the use of force directed at a state is a form of deterrent, and the best way to manage this new threat environment, according to what Scott McClellan tells us every day, is to go to the source.

- This administration decided the way in which to deal with 9/11 was to take it over there.

- And I substantiate that stark statement around what I think is a compelling fact of life: the United States this year will spend more on conventional military capability than the next 30 nations combined and by 2008, on the current track, we'll be spending more than the entire world combined.

- What happened for almost a year after 9/11, is what I call "the Period of Patriotic Silence." Basically these sectors [State Government & Private Sector] waited because they thought this national security, war on terror might have some federal leadership role here, and the federal government is going to put some money behind this rhetoric, and so some resources will start to flow and some guidance will start to flow. And it took about 18 months for people to say, nothing's coming?

The government had a federalism conversation that none of you were invited to. It was: "You Lose." Take care of this yourself.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/browse_thread/thread/e8e8ea787c0e611f/f886f5a3ea4ad909%23f886f5a3ea4ad909?sa=X&oi=groupsr&start=0&num=3

These excerpts from an article published in 2003:

- (FORTUNE Magazine) – A bit over a year ago, all the ports on the West Coast were shut for 11 days in a contract dispute with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. That cut the flow of more than 60% of U.S. imports. Container ships piled up, retailers' shelves emptied, and factories waiting for foreign parts stalled. Cost to the U.S. economy: by one estimate, $15.6 billion.

- ...If one container on a bill of lading is pulled out, the others are also held up. Delivery dates are missed. Costs pile up. Terminals charge storage of some $100 a day if the containers stay too long. U.S. Customs bills for time spent on inspections. If the inspection station isn't on the terminal, there's transportation to pay.

- In the post-Sept. 11 world, the U.S. needs to secure the ports through which it annually imports nearly seven million containers holding $500 billion worth of goods. ..."The infrastructure is so huge, and the vulnerability is so massive. To protect it and inspect all the cargo would consume zillions of dollars."

- So far, U.S. ports haven't gotten much in the way of federal help.

- Overall responsibility for ports and vessels everywhere in the U.S. still rests with the Coast Guard. U.S. Admiral Thomas Collins, commandant of the Coast Guard, estimates that the U.S. maritime industry will have to spend $1.5 billion in the next year and some $7 billion more over the next decade to comply with the new rules.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/11/10/352854/index.htm

First, you have federal resources being concentrated into the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, with sites on Iran and possibly Syria. The unexpectedly lengthy occupation has further drained the federal coffers, especially since Iraq's oil has been a dismal disappointment.

In the meantime U.S. ports and Border Patrol agencies have received little if any federal assistance. Corporations were encouraged to invest in security measures for their own supply chains, and vigilante groups began to address border issues.

Our first wake up call was Katrina. We now know Homeland Security is a farce. We also know there are no funds to address this kind of disaster, whether natural or that of terrorism.

So I also am still asking the question: Is there any such thing as port security?

**********

As a side note, did anyone catch this quote by Rummy?

“We all deal with the U.A.E. on a regular basis,” he added. “It’s a country that’s been involved in the global war on terror...a country (with which) we have very close military relations.”

It made me LMAO, and reminded me of this one by Bush:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ----Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

In any event...